The thread that will never get a real answer

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Frira

 

Paul is talking about Jesus in Philippians 2 and saying he found himself in the form of god.
What does this mean, "found himself"?

So, these, sort of...

...Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself... being born in the likeness of men.

Then...

And being found in human form, he humbled himself...

So, I take it be Paul's less-than-technical version of the latter Chalcedonian Definition

Did God and gods find themselves as gods like we find ourselves being humans?

I think it is an Incarnation statement, that mankind found Christ Jesus in the form of God, and Christ Jesus, being born, was found by us in the form of men.

I admit, it is an odd way of putting it, "found in."

Precision in theological terminology fussed over that point, as I suspect you know-- the homoousia (without the "i" = "of same substance") verses the homoiousia (with the "i" = of like substance").

That is my understanding, and so the "found" is from the merely human observer's perspective.

I got into this because I don't think that saying the universe exists proves the existence of God.

Agreed.

Instead of looking at the heavens and thinking God made all that, it might be more appropriate to think, Today a giant asteroid did not come by and pull the atmosphere away from the Earth so that we all would have died. Thank you, God.

edit on 10-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

June the Fourth, Nineteen-seventy-three...



Thank God!

reply to post by jmdewey60

Originally posted by jmdewey60
How do you connect the two things, the existence of the universe, and the existence of God?

How…

Because I’m going with Genesis 1, and then extrapolating from there…


Genesis 1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I don’t see it as God looking around in space, and thinking hey, there’s some cool looking material over there, maybe I can use to build the Heavens and Earth lol etc…


How I connected those 2 things, is by recognizing that God is the creator of the Heavens/Universe, and that he doesn’t make the Earth from existing material, but that he actually created and guided the elements to become what they are. Because if he didn’t, then IMO he wouldn’t be God.


There’s 2 ways of looking at this; one, God created the elements outside himself, through a guided process and then used them to build/make everything else, or secondly and similarly, God is a part of everything we see around us, including the very elements he guided into creation. I personally go with the later. Either way, Gods hand guides the very fabric of creation itself and is the reason for it’s very existence IMO.


I like how Theophorus put it, when he said “Only the mind(spirit) can solicit the body (matter) God possess all things in his own right.” This is how I kind of see it myself, in that Gods essence/Spirit permeates through all aspects of creation.


From the Gospel of Thomas…verse 77

Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

- JC

reply to post by Frira


Reading something like, "who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped . . ." gives me a mental picture of a state that was of a temporary nature and does not give me the idea of something that had been going on forever. Someone understands they are a being pf a particular status but does not see any real advantage to staying that way when he could demote himself to a lower status where he could do many beneficial things. This makes me think of a god as something closer to us than to whatever created the universe.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Theophorus

 

. . . wouldn't that deity have to be omni everything.

You are making an assumption.
The next step would be to ask yourself if there is any way you might prove this assumption.

Considering I am using a real book with real words thousands of years old as proof as to what gods nature would be my assumption would be reasonable. Would it not?

In your hypothetical, you would inquire into the Bible to see if it says anything like that.

I could start quoting ,that would make my hypothetical substantially real.

reply to post by Theophorus

I could start quoting ,that would make my hypothetical substantially real.

Well, right, that was what I was asking.
Does the Bible claim such a thing.
All the verses that people normally quote come from Job.
This was coming from a boastful god who was trying to crush Job down to submit to the harsh judgment against him, thus making him (the one boasting) take the role of Satan. Job defied Satan posing as this all-powerful god, not accepting his claims, but Job called him out and said that, No you are not, and in fact, in addition to you not being all these things you claim, there is a higher authority, above you who I will appeal to, who will take my side against you. So Satan backed down and restored Job, proving that he was not all he claimed to be.
So my point is that to me, this was the lies of Satan, used to throw accusations against Job and for Job to accept them, since the person making those accusation presents himself as indisputable master of everything.
People who want to promote the theory that God created the universe quote Satan lying about doing such a thing.
If you quote scripture to support your theory, I would ask that you not bother quoting Job, then let's see if you have anything.

Originally posted by Frira

Let's see, this was your very first post:


* "nothing but arguments from ignorance."
* "do not and should be the products of any fully functioning brains. "
* "pretty ridiculous"
* "People are not killing themselves or each other because I may or may not exist."
* "These are all whats called arguments from ignorance,"
* "They convince only the dullest of minds."
* "This is a complete fallacy"

Yep I stand by all those statements. I'm not sure what they have in common with your abusive ad hominem attack though.......I wonder what your god would think of that..

Originally posted by Frira

Then, as you stated that the theory of evolution was...

As proof goes, its the most water tight proof we have ever discovered, and proponents of evolution have indeed met their burden of proof.

... I entered to comment that it was not the superlative as it could not be recreated and only addressed a small portion of the theory.

There. I corrected you and showed you where you were wrong-- just as you asked I would do. I had already done it.

You did? where? All you posted was "Evolution has observable evidence, but can not be repeated by experiment"

I provided a link (evidence) showing you that evolution has been repeated, directly refuting your claim.

Originally posted by Frira

You responded with a link to an experiment about bacteria adapting.

It does not address the theory of evolution in total-- Lower forms to higher forms, for example; or species change which can no longer mate with prior species-- and for that matter, the e-coli experiment did not address natural selection at all.

Sigh.........another theist attempting to lecture on a subject they obviously have no knowledge on.....

There is no such thing as 'lower forms' or 'higher forms', and nautral selection doesnt need to be addressed, its a self evident process of evolution that has been observed and verified many times.

And when you say 'species change which can no longer mate with prior species' you mean Speciation?

Originally posted by Frira

Scripture, being silent on evolution, cannot be contradicted by the theory of evolution. Howevere, Interpretation of Scripture so as to deny evolution is NOT a doctrine of the Church. You paint with a broad and insulting brush-- again (go back and read the quotes from your fist post).

The fact that you choose to willfully ignore what is plainly written in the first page of your holy book in an effort to squeeze it into a modern understanding is irrelevant. There is only one reason why followers of the Abrahamic religions deny evolution, and its not due to their scientific scrutiny....

Originally posted by Frira
Your theme began with, and continues to be, disparagement of Christians.

Yep and I'm completely unapologetic about that. I find christianity and christians offensive. But I don't expect anyone to care nor do I expect anyone to change their behavior because I may or may not be offended.

Originally posted by Frira
You interpreted it in such a way as to create a "straw man" you can easily push over. What a hero! Don't hurt yourself, strong man, picking up that piece of dust.

Straw man eh? well thats rich considering........

Originally posted by Frira
Back it up.

* Show me a Church tenet or doctrine stating that the Christian must believe that the Earth is flat. I said there is no such doctrine.
* Show me a Church doctrine or tenet stating that the Christian must believe that the Sun orbits the Earth? I said there is no such doctrine.
* Show me a Church doctrine or tenet stating that the American Indians were to be exterminated? I say there is no such doctrine.

Not once have I claimed any of these things, not once have I used the word 'doctrine' or anything similar.

The fact is that there are christians who believe that the earth is flat, and there are christians who believe that the earth is the centre of the universe and that the sun orbits the earth, as proven by our very own jmdewey60 and 'superior band teacher ED' (see his awesome thread on this issue here). And lets not forget the fact that christian settlers did enact the American Indian holocaust.

Who is this 'Church' you speak of? There is no central church that speaks for all christians that sets doctrines that all christians must follow and adhere by. Is it your local church? do you think it speaks for all christians? you carnt possibly be that ignorant can you?............................oh

Originally posted by Frira

Besides assigning motive, you claim to speak for the Church by assigning what Christians must believe. I have the authority to speak for the Church-- not all will accept it, and that is fine-- and as it should be. But, you have no authority to speak for the Church-- at all.

Its turning into a forest of strawmen here geez

No I do not have the authority to speak for The Church...............whoever that is.

You may have authority to speak for your local church, but you do not have the aurthority to speak for all christians as you seem to think you do. The arrogance needed to make such a claim is mind blowing......but not surprising.

Originally posted by Frira

Knowing the doctrines held by the Church is a requirement of my profession. Non professionals are not held to such a standard. The average Joe and Jill in the pew speculate without academic discipline-- rarely having the resources to fully insure that they have a proper understanding. As a result, many Christians hold opinions, and confuse their opinions with reasonable articulation of Church doctrine.

The fact that someone claiming to be a professional theologian, constantly refers to 'the church' and its doctrines as absolutes within the christian faith, calls others childish names, and argues in a most dishonest manner makes me think all of your personal claims are BS.

Originally posted by Frira

I have to deal with that every day-- and I write for them, because I assume they have the intellect, but just not the learning.

lol oh boo hoo get over yourself.

Originally posted by Frira

Here is my counter-- to speak for you:

All atheists are required to believe that they are smarter than anyone else, and hate all others and blame their own evil on Christians.

I don't believe that, and do not have the authority to claim it to be true. But I can point to the first 300 plus years of the Church when the Christians were under constant persecution.

Should I not then, using your logic, blame you?

My logic? am I blaming you for the Indian American genocide? Are you accusing atheists of the persecution of christians for 300 years, because of their atheism? really? are you that dishonest? and what in the world does it have to do with your 'counter'?

its incoherent nonsense, it makes no sense and is self contradictory.

If you're being paid to write, then going off this thread and your responses, the literary standards in Texas must be exceptionally low. I fear your time as a professional may be drawing to an end.

reply to post by Prezbo369

. . . and there are christians who believe that the earth is the centre of the universe and that the sun orbits the earth, as proven by our very own jmdewey60 . . .

I was saying that either one is equally valid and that heliocentrism is not proven fact, just a theory, like evolution.
I lean more towards geocentrism but that is not based on religion but the fact that earth is a dense iron planet and the sun is a ball of the lightest sort of gas you can have, so does not have enough gravity to create an orbit of heavy planets like Earth an Mars, while it can create orbits of a tiny rock like mercury and a ammonia gas planet like Venus.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by Frira

Let's see, this was your very first post:


* "nothing but arguments from ignorance."
* "do not and should be the products of any fully functioning brains. "
* "pretty ridiculous"
* "People are not killing themselves or each other because I may or may not exist."
* "These are all whats called arguments from ignorance,"
* "They convince only the dullest of minds."
* "This is a complete fallacy"

Yep I stand by all those statements. I'm not sure what they have in common with your abusive ad hominem attack though...

Oh, that is easy to explain:

You were being a punk, so I called you a punk.

...I wonder what your god would think of that..

God nodded.

Originally posted by Frira
Your theme began with, and continues to be, disparagement of Christians.

Yep and I'm completely unapologetic about that. I find christianity and christians offensive. But I don't expect anyone to care nor do I expect anyone to change their behavior because I may or may not be offended.

And so I called you a punk.

The fact that someone claiming to be a professional theologian, constantly refers to 'the church' and its doctrines as absolutes within the christian faith, calls others childish names, and argues in a most dishonest manner makes me think all of your personal claims are BS.

Which underscores that you remain.... a punk.

THIS IS THE "REAL" ANSWER...

Originally posted by neotech1neothink

"GOD" AND "LIFE AFTER DEATH" (AND "HEAVEN" AND "HELL" ENERGY REALMS) REALLY DO EXIST PERIOD!

"GOD" IS BOTH "HEAVEN" AND "HELL" COMBINED INTO "ONE"

"THE ABOVE ALL EXIST" WITHOUT ANY NEED FOR "RELIGIONS" OR "FAITH"!

FOR "YOU" ARE THE "ONE GOD".

edit on 12-12-2011 by neotech1neothink because: underlined "YOU"

reply to post by jmdewey60


there is really no lack of scriptural or ecclesiastical testimonies asserting gods immensity and ubiquity without referring to job. psalm 138 7-12 colossians 1:16-17 ephesians 1:23 acts 17:24-28 hebrews 1:3 4:12-13.
Biblical proof as to the divine nature of god is prevalent.so this debate continues.......

reply to post by Theophorus

I'll go over it again for those who don't take such a literal approach to scripture.
Physical things that grow can be measured.
Common sense tells us there's a difference between things that can be measured, and things which can not. knowledge and grace are two things which can not. (prove how they can) We as humans obtain knowledge and lose knowledge, obtain grace and lose grace. its not a constant.
Your interpretation of what scripture says and what is truth, conflict. you must be mistaken

Would you not consider something that was previously unknown that has been learned... growth?

Knowledge can be measured, thats pretty obvious... if you want proof, ask a 4 year old a simple math equasion... he likely will not have the answer until he learns math... that is growth of knowledge which can be measured.

Growth of the spirit is growth of knowledge of spiritual matters...

Now which conflicts are you talking about...

Btw thank you for being civil... this i can work with

Originally posted by Frira

Oh, that is easy to explain:

You were being a punk, so I called you a punk.

And so I called you a punk.

Which underscores that you remain.... a punk.

Oh bravo

A true wordsmith, a Shakespeare of our time

reply to post by Theophorus

. . . psalm 138 7-12 . . .

Probably meant Psalms 16:5-9(parts a, with parts b edited out)

to the one who used wisdom to make the heavens,

to the one who spread out the earth over the water,

to the one who made the great lights,

the sun to rule by day,

the moon and stars to rule by night

Sounds a lot like the creation story. When it says "made" it does not specifically mean to create something out of nothing but conveys the meaning more of fashioning something out of existing materials to make something useful.
According to the old cosmology in use in this writing, YHWH or the Elohim (this song starts out by saying praise the God of Gods) used the spirit to cause the waters to separate and part of it going up to crate a dome for the sky, and thus removing enough of the ocean to expose an appropriate portion of the earth which was previously all underwater.
It may be that the next step was to make the sky clear so that the sun and the moon were able to cast their light onto the earth so people would be able to see. Where if you go deep into the ocean you find yourself in darkness, God (or whoever) was able to cause the dome and the firmament to be transparent, which is no small feat.

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.

Or get God to grow someone's amputated limb back.

Originally posted by Equidae

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.

Or get God to grow someone's amputated limb back.

Humans: "Listen here God, you're going to jump through our hoops!"

God: "LOL, k."

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Humans:"If you're so great, how about giving us rain when we need it, and no rain when we don't?"

God:"I could but I don't wanna."

HUmans: "But why, if you loved us wouldn't you want to help us along?"

God:"I could but I don't wanna, dont question me son I know what Im doing."

Humans: "Why are we worshipping this guy again?"

Priest" Cuz youll get torn into little pieces while on fire forever if you don't."

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Equidae

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.

Or get God to grow someone's amputated limb back.

Humans: "Listen here God, you're going to jump through our hoops!"

God: "LOL, k."

Humans: how do we know you're real?

God: Nunya business! You must suppress this innate desire for truth and questioning that I gave you. I got bored by the erector set method, and finished you via a rib, silly putty, and duct tape. For your sanctification of course.

Humans: Then how do we know which religion is correct?

God:, *has angels push out the Wheel 'o Religions*

Humans: wtf?!

God: Get your spin right, otherwise you're gonna burn in hell for all of eternity. Alright, I'll give you a hint: if it involves smiting a disliked minority then you're on the right track...

Humans: *facepalm*

God: but srsly, don't screw it up or you'll be flavoring my Miracle Marshmallow S'mores. Apostates are the secret ingredient of course!

Originally posted by Equidae

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.

Or get God to grow someone's amputated limb back.

You mean like this?

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by Equidae

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.

Or get God to grow someone's amputated limb back.

You mean like this?

No, I mean with actual evidence, or are you saying that God hates healing amputees when there's actual ways to document it? Things as far fetched as the Jersey Devil have 'witnesses.' Galen had 'witnesses' of people he cured by manipulation of the humors, but that doesn't mean it really happened. I'm waiting for proof, which oddly enough is required for everything but religion. People credited all sorts of awesome medical interventions to God in the Middle Ages, but even the most devout of believers would probably have a fit if their Doctor wanted to treat their cancer with prayer and visiting holy shrines.

Or maybe a poor child who lost a limb to civil war in a third world country isn't worth the effort of healing by God?